The following is a thread I started, however I was referred to this thread when mine was closed for being similar. I do see some similarity, so I am
reposting it, and I apologize that it is slightly off topic, not trying to derail anything (the OP asked why we need them, not if we have a right to
them.)

So I guess my first answer to the OP is that the Supreme Court says not only that we can have them, but that we should, and that when a militia is
summoned we are expected to show up with our own weapons. Of course, this is just one reason. Another would be that hold an AK just makes me look so
hot.

From other thread:

Supreme Court says military weapons protected under 2nd

I know, my timing is horrible on this one, but I have been meaning to make this post for a while now, before the bandwagon anti-constitutionalists
decided to re-victimize the families of those who died at Virginia Tech. by using the horror of their loved ones deaths to score points in what is to
them just a political game. For my horrible timing, I apologize.

I want to bring up the fact that, although no-one talks about it much, the Supreme Court has in fact ruled that individual citizens have the right to
carry modern military grade weapons.

In THE ONLY 2ND AMENDMENT CASE THE COURT HAS HEARD, US v. Miller, the S.C. decided that Miller, who had transported a “sawed off” shotgun across
state lines in violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act, would have to have to defend himself in a lower federal court because his weapon had no
military usefulness. Had his lawyer known that “sawed off” shotguns (wiki on trench
guns) were used in WWI, it is probable that Miller would not have been remanded back to the lower court.

The court also stated that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right and responsibility of all men of military age.

On March 30, 1939 the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in
any militia organization.
Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court.

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court
declared that no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this
time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
The Court indicated that only military type arms are constitutionally protected.

I would like to hear from anyone who has reason to think that, in light of the Miller case, we do not have a legal right to own any weapon of military
usefulness we desire in the US.

Originally posted by Paul3
The Militia Act of 1792 requires ownership of military grade weapons by citizens age 18 to 45. It has never been repealed!

I'm not seeing how this required everyone to own a gun.

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen"
between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were required to arm themselves at their own expense
with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 rounds of ammunition, and a knapsack.

If anything it's one of the earliest forms of the draft, which required you
to provide your own guns, honestly no part of that is fair at all in my
opinion.

I'm pretty sure this does not apply anymore though, considering this.

These Militia Acts were amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. They were
replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United
States.

Basically, these acts were replaced by the creation of the national guard.

Originally posted by cavscout
Another would be that hold an AK just makes me look so hot.

well, the thread can be closed now, cos I am satisfied this is an adequate explanation

I know I definitely need to see more hot people getting
around!

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and
States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in
concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these
men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

This is by far the most logical reason offered up so far. In the threads I have read that discuss this issue, not one person has offered this
explanation. It seems to be an extra security measure on top of the Military for the purposes of defending your country if and when a crisis happens.

Thank you for your contribution. And now, as an Australian who doesnt own a gun nor knows how to use one, if a state of war was declared on my
frontdoor, I would be rooted if I had to protect my home.

I would give you a WATS but I don't have any left to give out cos the button has vanished.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Personally I believe that people should be able to have any kind of
weapon they choose, excluding nuclear, chemical, biological or high
explosives (like the bombs carried by B-2s), however, that said I do
not believe that you should just be able to walk into a gun shop, or tank
dealership (I know, there's no such thing, but it would be cool if there
were) and just buy one.

Why are people so eager to say we should give up our guns just because the GOVT. has better ones, or tanks?

I hear the argument again and again, "Well, you can't fight off the Government with an AK anyways since they have nukes, or tanks, or insert
powerful military tech. here."

THAT IS NOT THE POINT!

ANY advantage that the civilian has is worth fighting for. I don't care if the Military DOES have nukes and tanks, as long as I have a rifle that
gives me half a chance against marauding storm-troopers, I'm not going to give that up too just because they have tanks.

Lets look at Iraq for a minute...

We have nukes, and tanks, and patriot missiles, and god knows what else.
The Insurgents have AKs, RPGs, and homemade explosives.
So why is the American Military getting their butts handed to them on a daily basis? Because an Armed Population is a powerful thing.

And as far as shootings go, most often it occurs with non-military style weapons. V.Tech happened with 9mm pistols, not "assault" weapons. And I
tell you what else, if CCWs were allowed on school premises, and even 3 students on the whole campus were legally carrying, the whole ordeal would
probably have been over with a lot sooner and with a much lower body count.

If you REALLY want to understand why we need "Military Style Weapons", then go read a history book, or better yet, go out to your local firing range
and spend some time with some REAL Americans who love their Country and enjoy the freedoms protected under the Constitution. I would recommend you
also watch a copy of WACO: The Rules of Engagement just in case you are still of the opinion that Americans have no reason the worry about
defending themselves from the Government.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.